Thu 16 Dec, 2010 11:35 am
When I was a kid, a friend of mine had a t-shirt with a word on it. I couldn't see the whole word at first, just "record." Then she moved her arm or whatever and I saw the rest: "recorder." I couldn't figure out what a record-er was. It had lodged as "record" (as in a record album) in my brain, and when I added "er" it didn't make any sense.
This even though she played the recorder and I knew what a recorder was.
This is one thing that pisses me off about bad, soundbite-y, sensationalistic reportage. When it's a ballerina having "one too many sugar plums" being inflated to "Elitist New York Times Reporter Calls This Ballerina (Who Had an Eating Disorder By the Way) OBESE" it's annoying but whatever. When it's political reportage I think it gets downright dangerous.
Because I think the initial thing gets locked in and even with further information it can be hard to jar that loose.
Hope, Change and Yes We Can come to mind.
In a similar vein, I worry about older words and expressions gently sliding into new uses. You no longer have to do or advocate anything to be a racist. A terrorist no longer has to cause physical harm to anyone, and a weapon of mass destruction doesn't have to be radiological, chemical, or biological. Seems like a box of Miracle Grow with a fuse is a WMD.
I have been seeing snippets of this but haven't really read about the story to know the ins and outs of it. There is an article on the subject with details and how she felt about the criticism. It was more or less, he hurt her feelings, but she felt he had a right to his opinions. Gracious.
NY critic implies ballerina is fat
Everybody is selling something, and the rule is Buyer Beware. Sad but true.
" Walk softly and carry a BIG stick"